On April 27, 2001, this matter came
before the Disciplinary Board, consisting of Richard J. Colten, Donna A. DeCorleto,
Karen A. Gould, Roscoe B. Stephenson and Henry P. Custis, Jr., Chairman, on
the Petition for Reinstatement by Salvage DeLacy Stith to reinstate his license
to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Mr. Stith had his license to
practice law revoked in 1994 after being charged with serious violations of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.

This matter is governed by Rule 13(J)
of the Rules of Court, Part Six, Section IV. Pursuant to that provision, it
is the petitioner's burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that he
is a person of honest demeanor and good moral character and that he possesses
the requisite fitness to practice law.

This opinion constitutes the recommendation
of a majority of the Disciplinary Board panel that heard this case: Richard
J. Colten, Karen A. Gould and Henry P. Custis, Jr., Chairman. Donna A. DeCorleto
and Roscoe B. Stephenson, dissented and voted not to recommend reinstatement.
See the minority opinion attached.

In addition to the testimony of the
petitioner, the Board heard and considered the arguments of counsel and the
testimony of two witnesses who appeared on the petitioner's behalf: Paul C.
Gillis and William T. Mason, Jr., Esq. The Bar opposed the Petition for Reinstatement.

The Board also reviewed the petition
filed by the Petitioner, exhibits attached thereto, petitioner's Answers to
Request for Bill of Particulars, and letters from the community in response
to the Bar's publication of the public hearing on Mr. Stith's Petition for Reinstatement.
The Board considered the following factors in reaching its conclusion and recommendation
to the Supreme Court as outlined by this Board In the Matter of Alfred L.
Hiss, Docket No. 83-26, opinion dated May 24, 1984:

1. The severity of the petitioner's
misconduct including but not limited to the nature and circumstances of the
misconduct.

2. The petitioner's character, maturity
and experience at the time of his disbarment.

3. The time elapsed since the petitioner's
disbarment.

4. Restitution to clients and/or
the Bar.

5. The petitioner's activities since
disbarment including but not limited to his conduct and attitude during that
period of time.

6. The petitioner's present reputation
and standing in the community.

7. The petitioner's familiarity with
the Virginia Rules of Professional Conductand his current
proficiency in the law.

8. The sufficiency of the punishment
undergone by the petitioner.

9. The petitioner's sincerity, frankness
and truthfulness in presenting and discussing factors relating to his disbarment
and reinstatement.

10. The impact upon public confidence
in the administration of justice if the petitioner's license to practice law
was restored.

In order to assess factors 1 through
10 above, it is necessary to review the circumstances that gave rise to the
revocation of Mr. Stith's license in 1994, as well as other disciplinary violations
of which Mr. Stith had been found guilty. In 1978, Mr. Stith received a private
reprimand for failure to perfect an appeal. In 1983, there was an agreed disposition
on a complaint in which Mr. Stith agreed not to make loans to clients and not
to endorse client's names to settlement checks. In 1984, Mr. Stith received
a private reprimand for commingling funds and failure to properly maintain his
trust account. In 1986, Mr. Stith received a private reprimand for the manner
in which he handled a case. In 1987, Mr. Stith received a public reprimand as
a result of neglect of a divorce action. Mr. Stith had his license suspended
from 1987 to 1990 as a result of making business loans to himself out of his
trust account. Mr. Stith's license to practice law was suspended for twelve
months in 1993 as a result of continuing to act as though he was authorized
to represent a client after he had been discharged and engaging in settlement
negotiations without authority. Mr. Stith also received a public reprimand in
1993 for failure to perfect an appeal. Mr. Stith's license to practice law was
revoked in 1994 after a hearing by the Disciplinary Board on four complaints
involving trust account violations and failure to pursue appeals. The Board
concluded in 1994:

The Board is of the opinion that
under the facts of these complaints, which have been proven by clear and convincing
evidence, the Respondent, Stith, in person and through his attorney stipulated
to a great majority thereof, it must also consider the cumulative acts of misconduct
by the Respondent which continued over a period of several years, including
two prior suspensions and a public reprimand. Despite these prior sanctions,
Respondent has continued to violate the Disciplinary Rules as demonstrated by
the matters this day heard.

The Board makes the following findings
with respect to the Hiss factors enumerated as 1 through 10 above:

1. The severity of the petitioner's
misconduct including but not limited to the nature and circumstances of the
misconduct. The Board finds that the misconduct that gave rise to Mr.
Stith's license being revoked to have been serious. Mr. Stith made multiple
serious errors in judgment, which resulted in his license being revoked in 1994.
What is particularly troublesome, however, is the pattern and practice of ethical
violations that preceded his revocation. He had previously had his license suspended
on two occasions, once for one year and three years on the other suspension.
He had a history of trust account violations in terms of procedural irregularities,
as well as a pattern of failing to properly take care of appeals and otherwise
properly represent clients.

2. The time elapsed since
the petitioner's disbarment. The date of the Order disbarring Mr. Stith
is June 24, 1994. Therefore, approximately seven years has elapsed since Mr.
Stith's disbarment.

3. Restitution to clients
and/or the Bar. This factor is not applicable to Mr. Stith's Petition.

4. The petitioner's activities
since disbarment including but not limited to his conduct and attitude during
that period of time. According to the testimony presented by the petitioner,
Mr. Stith has been a responsible member of society since being disbarred by
supporting his family, by being a good parent, and by participating actively
in his church.He is an active participant in the NAACP. Since
Mr. Stith's disbarment, he has taught at Elizabeth City State University in
Elizabeth City, North Carolina, where is currently an Assistant Professor.

5. The petitioner's present
reputation and standing in the community. In addition to the two witnesses
who testified on his behalf, Mr. Stith had numerous letters submitted on his
behalf supporting his petition for reinstatement and speaking to his reputation
and standing in the community. At least five other persons were present who
would have testified as character witnesses on Mr. Stith's behalf, although
they were not called to testify. Mr. Stith is active in his church and the African-American
community. He has stayed in the community in which he practiced law. By all
accounts, he has a good reputation in his community. Paul Willis from Suffolk,
Virginia, testified regarding Mr. Stith's participation in the African-American
community and his encouragement of black youths to engage in law-abiding activities.
Mr. Mason testified to his excellent reputation when he was an attorney. Mr.
Stith has filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy six times because of IRS liens and
failure to make payments on his home mortgage, although the IRS has not accepted
his payment plan. He still owes the IRS approximately $100,000. There was evidence
that Mr. Stith has written checks in the last couple of years to the IRS on
several occasions which were returned for insufficient funds.

6. The petitioner's familiarity
with the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct and his current proficiency
in the law. Mr. Stith has taken continuing legal education courses
on Virginia law since being disbarred in 1994. The Board is satisfied that the
petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence familiarity with the
current Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, and that he has maintained his
knowledge of Virginia law.

7. The sufficiency of the
punishment undergone by the petitioner. The Board considers the loss
of Mr. Stith's license since June of 1994 to be sufficient punishment for the
specific misconduct that was the subject of the revocation, given the nature
of his misconduct.

8. The petitioner's sincerity,
frankness and truthfulness in presenting and discussing factors relating to
his disbarment and reinstatement. The Board found Mr. Stith to be sincere
and frank in his testimony to the Board in discussing the factors relating to
his disbarment and reinstatement. He did not excuse his conduct and was remorseful
about what he had done. Mr. Stith explained that he wanted his license reinstated
so that he could return to the practice of law, albeit not as a solo practitioner.
He promised to work in an environment where the trust accounts were maintained
by persons knowledgeable of the ethical requirements for same, to have an accountant
oversee his trust accounts and to be monitored by the Bar if it so desired.

9. The impact upon public
confidence in the administration of justice if the petitioner's license to practice
law was restored. Letters received from citizens in the Tidewater area
in response to the Bar's notification of the public hearing asked that Mr. Stith's
law license be restored to him. Letters received from several lawyers in the
Tidewater area were opposed to his reinstatement.(1)

Another issue that was a matter of
contention at the hearing was whether Mr. Stith had complied with the requirement
set forth in the Rules of Court, Part Six, Section IV, Paragraph 13(K)(1) (within
forty-days after from the date of disbarment, Mr. Stith was required to have
notified his clients, opposing counsel and the courts of his disbarment and
filed proof of such notification with the Clerk's Office). Mr. Stith introduced
evidence of certified mail receipts and copies of letters indicating that he
had complied with the notification requirements to his clients and the Bar.
The Bar disputed that Mr. Stith had ever filed proof of notification with the
Bar and filed an affidavit from the Clerk of the Disciplinary System to establish
that there was no evidence in the Clerk's Office. Evidence was also introduced
that a client had complained to the Bar that he had not been notified of Mr.
Stith's license revocation.

The Board recommends that Mr. Stith's
license be reinstated. The Board's opinion is that Mr. Stith's misconduct resulting
in his revocation was of a serious nature arising out of several separate incidents
that occurred over a several-year period. He represented to the Board that he
would not practice law as a solo practitioner, that he would not handle clients'
money himself, that he would work in an environment where someone who understood
the ethical responsibilities of trust accounts would handle the accounts of
the firm, that he would have an accountant oversee his trust accounts and to
be monitored by the Bar if it so desired.

. The argument and testimony of petitioner
and his counsel convinced the Board that Mr. Stith has rehabilitated himself
and will not commit any further transgressions. Accordingly, the Board recommends
that Mr. Stith's license be reinstated.

As required by Paragraph 13(K)(10)(e)
of the Rules of Court, Part Six, Section IV, the Board finds the cost of this
proceeding to be as follows:

Copying ................................
$ 1,650.03

Transcripts/court reporterÖÖ. 699.35

Mailing of notice of hearing.. 1,928.24

Administrative fee.................
300.00

Total $ 4,577.62

It is ORDERED that the Clerk of the
Disciplinary System forward this Order of Recommendation and the record to the
Virginia Supreme Court for its consideration and disposition.

It is further ORDERED that the Clerk
of the Disciplinary System forward an attested copy of this Recommendation Order
by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Petitioner at his address
of record with the Virginia State Bar, 3604 Cedar Lane, Portsmouth, Virginia
23703, with copies to Larry Wayne Shelton, Respondent's Counsel, Shelton &
Malone, P.C., Suite 1218, 500 East Main Street, Norfolk, Virginia 23510, and
to James M. McCauley, Ethics Counsel for the Virginia State Bar, 707 East Main
Street, Suite 1500, Richmond, Virginia 23219.